Madras HC Upholds Plaintiff’s Boundary Amendment in Family Pathway Dispute, Saying It Helps Identify Property Before Trial

The first respondent, as plaintiff, brought a suit seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration concerning a common pathway, injunctions, and removal of structures allegedly constructed on it

During the suit, he sought to amend the northern boundary of the suit property, explaining that the plaint had repeated the boundary description in his settlement deed but did not account for a subsequently granted patta over adjacent land extending to the LBP Canal

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the boundary was known before suit, that the settlement deed stated a different boundary, and that the plaintiff had not produced the patta

The Principal District Munsif allowed the amendment, finding that it introduced neither a new case nor a fresh cause of action and would not cause serious prejudice

The defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the plaintiff had not shown due diligence and that the amendment altered the suit’s scope

The Court applied the principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as summarised in Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729.

Amendments necessary for effective adjudication should generally be allowed if they do not cause injustice or prejudice, introduce a time-barred claim, change the nature of the suit, or set up an entirely new case; delay alone is not a sufficient ground to refuse amendment, and courts should ordinarily adopt a liberal approach where trial has not commenced

The revision was considered under Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court found that the plaint already pleaded the plaintiff’s patta over adjacent land and his claim concerning the common pathway and neighbouring properties

In that context, correcting the northern boundary would help identify the suit property rather than alter the dispute or introduce a new cause of action

The Court also noted that trial had not commenced, supporting a liberal approach to amendment, and concluded that the change would cause no irreparable prejudice to the defendants

It therefore found no illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court’s order

It dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and confirmed the order allowing the amendment; no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed